Week 4 Reading Notes LIS 2600

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database

Though I am super familiar with databases, the differentiation between a database, a database management system, and a database system is new to me.

Database = data and their supporting data structures; an organized collection of data; not generally portable across different DBMS

Database Management System (DBMS) = software package w/computer programs that control the creation, maintenance, and use of a database.

Database System = database data collection + DBMS; “implies that the data is managed to some level of quality.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-relationship_model

“In software engineering, an entity-relationship model (ER) is an abstract and conceptual representation of data.”

-          A way to model databases

-          Doesn’t show single entities or instances of relations, but sets.

I found the pictures very helpful in conceptualizing the structure of a database, and the relationships between data.

Entities = nouns

-          Every entity must have “a minimal set of uniquely identifying attributes, which is called the entity’s primary key.”

Relationships = verbs

http://www.phlonx.com/resources/nf3/

1.       No repeating elements or groups of elements

2.       No partial dependencies on a concatenated key

3.       No dependencies on non-key attributes

The invoice>spreadsheet vs. database example is really clear, and helped me understand the “normalization process.”

Tuple = database row

NF1 addresses:

1.       That a row of data can’t contain repeating groups of similar data

2.       And that each row of data must have a primary key

NF2 addresses the fact that there can be no partial dependencies on a concatenated key

2 different table columns treated as a single thing = concatenated

NF3 addresses that there can be no dependencies on non-key attributes

Week 3 Lab

http://www.citeulike.org/user/batait/library

Week 2 Lab

http://www.screencast.com/users/BAT2600

http://www.flickr.com/photos/74400691@N07/6737442855/

Week 3 Reading Notes LIS 2600

I have to say right off the bat that this week's readings were particularly dry and difficult for me to remain engaged in. I think metadata, while important, is probably the least appealing aspect of a library career for me. My notes will thus be equally dry, so please forgive me.

http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/intrometadata/setting.html

-Describes metadata as “the sum total of what one can say about any information object at any level of aggregation.”

-Defines information object as “anything that can be addressed and manipulated as a discrete entity by a human being or an information system. The object may comprise a single item, it may be an aggregate of many items, or it may be the entire database or record-keeping system.”

-                         -  3 features: Content, Context, Structure

o   Argues that all 3 of these should be reflected through metadata

For librarians, metadata is the “value-added” info they create to “arrange, describe, track, and otherwise enhance access to information objects and the physical collections related to those objects.”

Interesting criticism that hierarchical metadata aids only the scholarly user. Online situations will need a more accessible structure b/c they won’t be mediated by a reference librarian.

I like the idea of user-created metadata – tagging. While quality control is an issue, I feel like (especially in a digital environment), if someone knows what they are looking for, an object that has every possible tag will make it easier to retrieve. If someone does not know what they are looking for, multiple tags will be useful in a different way because a useful object will show up in the results despite a perhaps otherwise ineffective search term. 

http://dublincore.org/1999/06/06-overview/

DCMI (Dublin Core Metadata Initiative) seeks to foster consensus across disciplines “for the discovery-oriented description of diverse resources in an electronic environment.”

-          Primarily been focused on semantic clarification of the Dublin Core Element Set and id of common cross-domain qualifiers to support richer descriptive requirements.

This seems like an interesting initiative, but I am not tech-savvy enough to understand the implications of it. I think anything that looks for the common ground across disciplines is useful though, because if people need information about a certain subject they are unlikely to look in any other subject, despite the fact that there is much important cross-over...

http://www.hsl.unc.edu/Services/Tutorials/ENDNOTE/intro.htm

EndNote X5: Introduction:

EndNote is a bibliographic software program

Can be used to search for literature, develop a personal library of references, and create citations for papers/publications.

I find it annoying to try to learn software that I don't own - I learn more easily by messing around with it. Watching videos and reading about how to do things I can't do isn't useful to me. 

It would be helpful to have a better introduction to things like this - perhaps Zheu could write a line or two about what we should be trying to gain from looking at these tutorials, and to what in our future as librarians this knowledge would apply. 

Week 2 Reading Notes LIS 2600

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_hardware/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software

I am already familiar with hardware – the physical parts of a computer, and software – the programs on a computer. I did not know that the term software also encompasses film, tapes, and records when associated w/computers, as Wikipedia suggests. It is also interesting to note that “elements of computing first considered to be software, [now] join the ranks of hardware,” and that computers did not used to come with pre-installed software. It seems like now computers come with a ton of pre-installed software, and you can also download software from the web for free with a few clicks of a mouse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/technology/28iht-LIBRARY29.1.8079170.html

I understand the skepticism with allowing a private (huge) company like Google take over the digitization of hundreds of thousands of historical materials. As the Stephen Bury, head of European and American collections at the British national library was quoted in the article, “the commercial companies are obviously in it either for shareholder profit or doing it to get a public feel-good factor.” These companies don’t necessarily have the best interests of the public in mind, and they aren’t dedicated to providing a balance in materials (ie – what is considered important in terms of context and perspective may not be the things that will make money). But they have the dinero.

While in some ways this is an unfortunate situation, this article points out the benefits of being realistic about digitization, and negotiating partnerships. Google is a brilliant beast of sorts, but I am sure that libraries and other organizations who take them time to talk with them about business models and digitization efforts are doing two things: slowly pulling Google out of the tunnel, and inheriting some smart ideas about budgeting. The perk to having two institutions on opposite ends of a spectrum – one who saw an opportunity to capitalize on digitization, and one who saw an opportunity to preserve the world’s knowledge store – is that they will (hopefully) even each other out, and find balance.

It pleased me to read that most organizations mentioned in the article are not accepting “conditional” money from Google or other private companies. They are forming partnerships, sharing ideas, and rearranging models accordingly. I think libraries have to acknowledge the power of companies like Google, and sometimes (while not ideal), it is better to join them than to be defeated by them.